06-07-2015, 11:33 AM
The more I read this thread, the more unsettled I become. But my concern is less with what the CWP presents than with how it is presented.
What are the composition and terms of reference of the CWP? (I have searched but - presumably - in the wrong place.)
By what authority does the CWP present its case to the SGM? The CWP comprises “draughtsmen”, not “lawmakers”. Its findings should be presented by the elected office bearers who appointed its members and who - I assume - have endorsed its recommendations/conclusions.
The fact that the CWP has not completed its deliberations is concerning, too. The President is not standing for re-election, so whence will continuity derive? The CWP Statement of 30 June 2015 (coupled with other releases) is candid: many issues were settled by majority voting. How clearcut was this majority? Have issues simply been rolled over? The CWP expresses an aspiration: to achieve an “enabling” Constitution, leaving much of the “nuts and bolts” detail - that is, Operational Procedures - to be filled in later. All well and good, no doubt, but patronising.
The SGM will be governed by the existing Constitution, but neither it nor its proposed replacement - if adopted - does anything to prevent bloc voting (not “block voting”, which as defined or interpreted by amuir is tantamount to gerrymandering). There needs to be a cap on how many proxy votes a single representative can bring to the meeting. There already exists a method for members to vote electronically (email) to a properly appointed “Presiding Officer” (or similar) to guard against gerrymandering - though this will do nothing to prevent campaigning, nor should it.
It is suggested that a proxy vote be limited to a specific motion or nomination. The significance of this would be to enhance the importance of actually attending an AGM/SGM where it is normal practice to debate/vote on all motions and issues. In my present circumstances, it is practically impossible for me to attend the SGM. Therefore, if I am to vote it will need to be by proxy. I am firmly opposed to Robin Moore’s proposal to retain voting for Junior Members under the age of 16. But, if I vote against that I cannot also vote against the current proposal regarding proxy votes. Conundrum!
The CWP has deliberated for many months: members are required to digest all that has been produced and make a decision within three weeks. Offhand, from a PR standpoint that is abject. Members need to be forbearing, recalling that all of the work is done by volunteers, who deserve our gratitude and support.
George
PS I drafted this before Robin posted earlier this morning, but pressing business intervened. I do not refer to Robin's expressed gratitude to Aiden.
What are the composition and terms of reference of the CWP? (I have searched but - presumably - in the wrong place.)
By what authority does the CWP present its case to the SGM? The CWP comprises “draughtsmen”, not “lawmakers”. Its findings should be presented by the elected office bearers who appointed its members and who - I assume - have endorsed its recommendations/conclusions.
The fact that the CWP has not completed its deliberations is concerning, too. The President is not standing for re-election, so whence will continuity derive? The CWP Statement of 30 June 2015 (coupled with other releases) is candid: many issues were settled by majority voting. How clearcut was this majority? Have issues simply been rolled over? The CWP expresses an aspiration: to achieve an “enabling” Constitution, leaving much of the “nuts and bolts” detail - that is, Operational Procedures - to be filled in later. All well and good, no doubt, but patronising.
The SGM will be governed by the existing Constitution, but neither it nor its proposed replacement - if adopted - does anything to prevent bloc voting (not “block voting”, which as defined or interpreted by amuir is tantamount to gerrymandering). There needs to be a cap on how many proxy votes a single representative can bring to the meeting. There already exists a method for members to vote electronically (email) to a properly appointed “Presiding Officer” (or similar) to guard against gerrymandering - though this will do nothing to prevent campaigning, nor should it.
It is suggested that a proxy vote be limited to a specific motion or nomination. The significance of this would be to enhance the importance of actually attending an AGM/SGM where it is normal practice to debate/vote on all motions and issues. In my present circumstances, it is practically impossible for me to attend the SGM. Therefore, if I am to vote it will need to be by proxy. I am firmly opposed to Robin Moore’s proposal to retain voting for Junior Members under the age of 16. But, if I vote against that I cannot also vote against the current proposal regarding proxy votes. Conundrum!
The CWP has deliberated for many months: members are required to digest all that has been produced and make a decision within three weeks. Offhand, from a PR standpoint that is abject. Members need to be forbearing, recalling that all of the work is done by volunteers, who deserve our gratitude and support.
George
PS I drafted this before Robin posted earlier this morning, but pressing business intervened. I do not refer to Robin's expressed gratitude to Aiden.